Education for Tolerance: Sustainable Dialogue
for Human Dignity
Ghelawdewos Araia
Human beings are good
by nature because they are essentially humane,
although from time to time the ‘monster within
us’ afflicts our goodness. The monster, however,
is neither permanent nor insurmountable. It can
indeed be overcome by effective education for
tolerance and a conscious and deliberate
application of sustainable dialogue in order to
achieve mutual understanding, mutual respect,
peaceful resolution of conflicts, and ultimately
the assurance of human dignity.
This
article, in essence, is broad range because it
will touch upon broad themes such as prejudice,
ethnicity and ethnic cleansing, race and racial
discrimination, bigotry and anti-Semitism,
inter-religious and intercultural dialogue, and
diagnosis and prognosis of all of the above.
I
have written repeatedly and extensively essays
pertaining to tolerance, some of which are the
following: “Ethiopian and Eritrean Conflict: The
Dilemma of Contemporary African Politics” (African
Family, January 1988), “Ethiopia and
Eritrea: Together Let US Sweetly Live” (Ethiopian
Commentator, September 1994), “The Curse and
Blessing of Nationalism in Africa” (African
Link, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1994), “Putting the
Cart Before the Horse: Race Relations in the
United States” (African American Chronicle, CUNY,
Vol. 1, No. 4, 1999), “The Philosophical and
Historical Roots of Racism” (African Link,
Vol. 8, No. 3, Third Quarter, 1999), “Strategies
for A Democratic Culture” East African Forum,
January 27, 2000, “Shades of Black and White:
Conflict and Collaboration Between Two
Communities,” (book review, African Link,
Vol. 9, No. 2, 2000), “The Exigency of National
Reconciliation and Legitimate Consensus in
Ethiopia,” East African Forum, March
2001, “Ethnocentric Politics and Reinforcing
Psychology in the Ethiopian Context” (www.ethiomedia.com/release/ethnocentric_politics.html
February 25, 2004), “Designing Continuum to
Enrich Ethiopian Educational Discourse and Debate
Culture” (www.africanidea.org/designing.html
September 7, 2004) , “Humanizing the Ethiopian
Political Culture” (www.africanidea.org/humanizing.html
October 15, 2005), “Political Culture in the
Context of Contemporary Ethiopian Politics” (www.africanidea.org./political_culture.html
November 22, 2005).
In
May 1998, a certain diplomat called my house and
informed me that Eritrean tanks have invaded the
Badme environs of the Shire area in Western
Tigray.” I listened to the diplomat with
disbelief and shock because, as per my article
mentioned above (‘Let Us Sweetly Live
Together’), I had a dream that Eritrea and
Ethiopia will peacefully coexist. After I hang up
the phone, I started drafting a peace proposal in
Tigrigna and Amharic, entitled Selam
Yi’hayish and Selam Yi’bejal (Peace
is Worth Trying) came out in a one page two folios
flyer and was distributed in public places
including restaurants, where most Ethiopians and
Eritreans hang out. They were my target audience
and I had hoped that they would take collective
initiative to prevent war and save a fraction of
humanity in the Horn of Africa. Despite my wish,
however, there was negative response to the memo
on peace I have written and the audience from
either side was extremely charged and furious, and
sadly they subordinated reason to their whims and
emotions.
Adding
insult to injury, a week after Selam Yi’bejal
was issued out for public consumption, a
self-appointed emissary called my house and to my
chagrin he told me that “it is too late now.”
With dismay, I responded, “what do you mean by
it is too late,” and he responded by saying
“war is imminent.” After our telephone
conversation ended, I contemplated with melancholy
and speculated that the conflict could have a
far-reaching adverse consequence. And several
months after the phone encounters, I was invited
by Columbia University School of International
Affairs to attend a speech by Susan Rice, the
under secretary for State Department. I found
myself in the middle of relatively enlightened and
rational audience that included several African
ambassadors at the UN Mission, the former mayor of
New York David Dinkens, and many academics.
Professor George Bond presided over the discussion
forum and I had the opportunity to forward a
question to Ms. Rice. I said, “why is it so
difficult for the United States to implement the
US-Rwanda Plan [initiative to broker peace between
Ethiopia and Eritrea] and bring about peace to the
Horn region?” The answer was simple, “we are
trying our best, but it is up to the two
governments to decide and bring about peace.”
Susan
Rice response to my question was justified if
carefully pin pointed, but it was not satisfactory
to a person like myself who was turning all stones
in an effort to influence public policy and
prevent the scourge of war. My dream was shattered
and my fear came true: the cost for the
Ethio-Eritrean war was the demise of 70,000
combatants on either side.
Was
it really necessary to witness carnage of such
proportions when in fact border dispute between
Ethiopia and Eritrea could have been settled
through dialogue and round table negotiations?
Human beings are smart; in fact, we are the
paragon of animals but we often do stupid things
tainted with malice, avarice, hate, and
destruction. And it is precisely this package of
psyche that gave rise to the genocide perpetrated
by the Nazis against European Jewry, ethnic
cleansing in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the
Pol Pot Killing Fields in Kampuchea, and the
Somali/Congo civil strife.
Sometimes
the ‘monster within us’ dominates our psyche
and tears apart our humanity and, in turn, we
violate the human dignity of our fellow beings.
But we tend to forget that the moment we violate
other people’s dignity, we also violate our own
humanity. We don’t seem to understand that we
all suffer if a part of humanity suffers due to
the collective guilt that we could be charged of.
The torturer does not understand that he or she
would ultimately denigrate its human worth when
they torture helpless prisoners; when the
oppressor humiliates the oppressed, as for
instance the Hutus calling the Tutsi
“cockroaches” or forcing the Jews in Europe
“to set up their booths in the Bruhl, a
pestilent swampy marsh,” (Howard Sachar), it is
the oppressor that is depraved of human qualities.
We must also understand that the gas chambers of
the Nazis, where millions of Jews perished, are
directed against all humanity! By the same token,
all forms of genocide, torture, and bigotry
wherever they take place must be viewed as crimes
against humanity.
The
cause for human suffering, in almost all cases is
the psychological makeup of people (individuals
and groups) manifested in the form of ideological
fanaticisms, jingoistic nationalism, religious
bigotry, anti-Semitism, racism, and ethnocentrism.
These manifestations are, by and large,
reflections of what we call prejudice. The
phenomenon of prejudice occurs as a result of
ignorance and/or misunderstanding, but it is not
simply a psychic dimension that is enveloped
within the minds of individuals or groups; it is
rather a developmental social process that breeds
hate directed against a certain group of people,
and once it is ingrained in the ontological fabric
of society, it could become dangerous. At this
stage, prejudice could be obsession [nal] and
could foment paranoid politics at state level.
In
order to minimize prejudice and counter all other
negative psychological make-ups, we have no choice
but to counter-attack the negative attributes and
reverse adverse social processes via education for
tolerance. However, being tolerant to ones own
detractors or enemies does not imply ‘turning
the other chick’ or unwarranted concession. It
is rather an attempt to maintain ones soul,
humanity and dignity and trying to save humanity
from sinking further into the abyss of the
monsters.
Our
best bet, therefore, is to cultivate a culture of
tolerance via our own schools and higher
institutions of learning, governmental
(inter-governmental, non-governmental),
institutions, the media and other public forums.
The United Nations was at the forefront in
fostering ideas of tolerance and combating
intolerance. The Preamble of the UN Charter
states, “We the peoples of the United Nations
determined to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war, …to reaffirm faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person, …and for these ends to
practice tolerance and live together in peace with
one another as good neighbors.”
Moreover the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights affirms that “Everyone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion”
(Article 18), “of opinion and expression”
(Article 19) and that education “should promote
understanding, tolerance, and friendship among all
nations, racial or religious groups” (Article
26).
Despite
the good intentions and conventions of the United
Nations, however, humanity still encounters
intolerance, racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism,
exclusions of minorities etc.
Tolerance should be part of the curricula
and taught in schools and promoted in the media
and all forums should begin with a definition of
the concept. When I wrote Strategies for a Democratic Culture on
January 2000, I adapted the ‘Oxford Companion of
Philosophy’ definition: “toleration requires
people to co-exist peacefully with others who have
fundamentally different beliefs or values.
Arguments for tolerance include the fallibility of
our beliefs, the impossibility of coercing genuine
religious beliefs, respect for autonomy, the
danger of civil strife and the value of
diversity.”
In
a similar vein, the UNESCO Final Report on the
United Nations Year for Tolerance (A/51/201)
presents the ‘Meaning of Tolerance’ (Article
1.1) as in the following: “Tolerance is respect,
acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity
of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression
and ways of being human. It is fostered by
knowledge, openness, communication and freedom of
thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is
harmony in difference. It is not only a moral
duty; it is also a political and legal
requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes
peace possible, contributes to the replacement of
war by culture of Peace.”
Article
2.1 of the Final Report, in part states,
“tolerance at the State level requires just and
impartial legislation law enforcement and judicial
and administrative process.” Similarly, Article
2.2 states, “in order to achieve a more tolerant
society, States should ratify existing
international human rights conventions, and draft
new legislations where necessary to ensure
equality of treatment and of opportunity for all
groups and individuals in society.”
As
stated above, however, what is to be done if
governments or heads of states (especially in
dictatorships) are intolerant, don’t respect
rule of law and don’t’ give weight to the UN
Year of Tolerance. It is also difficult to realize
tolerance at state level when in fact the state
itself sanctions laws of intolerance or
proclamations that don’t encourage tolerance. A
good example of the latter is the US Supreme Court
decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson that segregated
the United States society in 1896. In 1954, the
same Supreme Court (now relatively tolerant)
decided to make segregation unconstitutional in
Brown vs. Board of Education.
Tolerance
at state level is indeed important but change of
attitude or behavioral modification at all levels
is crucial in order to meaningfully employ
tolerance as part of respective cultures. Some
schools in the United States are promoting
multicultural curricula and celebrating the
cultures of various ethnic groups. As reported by
Tolerance.org, diversity and tolerance is shown by
‘Mix It Up at Lunch Day’ in Philadelphia, and
“more than 6 million students in 15,000 schools
took part in the nationwide Mix It Up at Lunch Day
on November 15th this year, up from 4
million students in 2004.” ‘Mix It Up’ is simply an all-inclusive tolerant program
that can bring about a revolution in the thinking
of the present generation of students with respect
to tolerance. It is a very promising agenda that
reinforces the UN motto of tolerance but its
impact will have to be measured by the response
and appreciation of the larger society that is
expected to change with the times.
As
students perform ‘mix ups,’ in the United
States and hopefully elsewhere in the world,
educational institutions all over the world should
replicate the teaching of tolerance in accordance
with their respective cultures and should
encourage open forum and dialogue for
intercultural and inter-religious interaction and
networking. All major religions preach tolerance
but they don’t all worship together. Tolerance
will create proximity and understanding among
various religious groups and sects and ultimately
lead to world peace, the precondition for
coexistence and the beginning of new era for human
dignity. Our schools should provide platform for
intercultural and inter-religious dialogue and
while they must make sure that every school
children carry a brochure of ‘education for
tolerance’ in his bag pack, governments must
observe November 16, the UN Tolerance Day as part
of their public holiday.
Even
after a sound curriculum to enhance tolerance and
government efforts to implement legislation for
the same purpose, humanity will continue to
countenance intolerance, bigotry, and the clouds
of war. But we should remain optimistic! After
all, human beings are good by nature, and even
under very difficult circumstances, we witness
characters as in Shindler’s List and Hotel
Rwanda, individuals who were the embodiment of
compassion and who tried to save a fraction of
humanity!
|
